Because the scale (resources) of the foreign actor, combined with the reality that they are competing in what they perceive as a no rules zero sum game, make for an exceptional situation.
I don’t read the first amendment as protecting the propaganda of hostile foreign state actors. Do you?
I believe a tax paying citizen has the right to expect our government protect their speech. I don’t extend that right to the PRC army intelligence branch.
If the scale of influence is the problem, the same restrictions should be applied to billionaires or corporations pushing paid speech.
> I believe a tax paying citizen has the right to expect our government protect their speech. I don’t extend that right to the PRC army intelligence branch.
Is there anyone else who shouldn't expect this protection? Fifth columnists (however you define them)? Immigrants? Criminals? Permanent residents? Visitors? Non-tax-payers? Bad people in general? Corporations? Traitors, wreckers, and saboteurs?
These same arguments are the fig leaf used in modern day Russia, to justify its crackdown on speech. The people saying bad speech are subjects of foreign powers acting against the interests of the nation, etc, etc.
I don’t read the first amendment as protecting the propaganda of hostile foreign state actors. Do you?
I believe a tax paying citizen has the right to expect our government protect their speech. I don’t extend that right to the PRC army intelligence branch.